Proposed US Nationwide Smoking Ban in Public Housing

I’d like to draw attention to a comment from Walt earlier today:

OT getting in early on this thread, may I urge everyone here to write a comment against the US Housing Authority proposal to ban smoking nationwide in all public housing. The plan comes complete with eviction for smokers (this would evict our friend Judy Ariel) and even includes a ban in single stand-alone public housing homes on the grounds that it’s “equal treatment.” The comment period closes in a few days and it’s stacked (5o-1) by pro-ban public housing admins and public healthists and activists who’ve collected (and then scanned into pdf attachments) semi-literate handwritten letters from ph residents swearing that their colds, corns and dandruff are caused by shs. Can we at least make a showing?

At this pt I’d say anyone, even non-Americans can play. You can make up a name, if you have to give a zip code, here are a few: Santa Monica CA, 90403; Alexandria VA, 22307; Hyattsville MD, 20781; Austin TX , 78722; Charlotte NC, 28227(that’s North Carolina)

Here’s the link to the comment form!searchResults;rpp=25;po=25;s=FR-5597-P-02;fp=true

Magnetic added:

Walt, that page you’ve linked to is very confusing as to how to comment.

Here’s a better link:!submitComment;D=HUD-2015-0101-0001

and also gave a link to the proposed rule:

The proposed rule:!documentDetail;D=HUD-2015-0101-0001

HUD proposes implementation of smoke-free public housing to improve indoor air quality in the housing, benefit the health of public housing residents and PHA staff, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower overall maintenance costs.

Once they can ban smoking, they can ban anything. They can use the same arguments with cooking, toilets, dust, music, TVs. They can ban anything they deem “unhealthy”.

It’s about control. For in this manner they can gradually enslave residents in public housing, evicting those who won’t buckle under.

Protest is necessary. I haven’t commented yet, but I will.


About the archivist

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Proposed US Nationwide Smoking Ban in Public Housing

  1. Joe L. says:

    The link Magnetic provided is the proper link to the comment submission form. The link Walt provided is a link to search results for all comments on the proposal.

    The comment submission form allows you to choose from multiple countries, so it appears they may be willing to entertain comments from non-U.S. citizens.

    I submitted a comment about 8 hours ago and it’s still not showing up in the search results. I’m not sure if there is some kind of moderation process, but I quickly closed the confirmation page after submitting my comment; I may have missed some information there.

    • magnetic01 says:

      I’m not sure if there is some kind of moderation process

      There is. I noticed a statement to that effect when submitting a comment. But it shouldn’t take more than a [business] day.

      • magnetic01 says:

        When you submit a comment, the website will issue you a receipt and tracking number for your comment (good idea to get a copy of that receipt page). At top right of the receipt page is:

        Your comment may be viewable on once the agency
        has reviewed it. This process is dependent on agency public
        submission policies/procedures and processing times. Use your
        tracking number to find out the status of your comment.

        • Harleyrider1978 says:

          I have pre written works that destroy their claims in minutes across the board. Problem is they will never be allowed to entered into the record. Guaranteed.

  2. Smoking Lamp says:

    I have submitted my comment in opposition to the proposed HUD ban on smoking in public housing. I also strongly advocate that all make as many comments as possible on US media sites in opposition to the ban. There is a large astroturf community of antismokers commenting in support of the ban (most of whom have likely never set foot in a housing project or section 8 apartment yet are able to attack both smokers and public housing residents for using public funds at the same time). The underlying hate that the antis rely upon to impose band is especially vile.

  3. Tony says:

    I will try to make a useful comment but want to think about it first. They have thrown a mountain of their pseudo-scientific claptrap at it. Debunking it would be simple enough in principle but there is so much that it would take a comment the size of a large book to do so. Presumably that is their plan.

    In the meantime, can anyone confirm that the “Dates
    Comment Due Date: January 19,2016”

    is the closing date for responses?

  4. magnetic01 says:

    “In proposing this policy, it is important for HUD to clarify that HUD’s proposal does not prohibit individual PHA residents from smoking. PHAs should continue leasing to persons who smoke. This rule is not intended to contradict HUD’s goals to end homelessness and help all Americans secure quality housing. Rather, HUD is proposing a prohibition on smoking inside public housing living units and indoor common areas, public housing administrative office buildings, public housing community rooms or community facilities, public housing day care centers and laundry rooms, in outdoor areas within 25 feet of the housing and administrative office buildings, and in other areas designated by a PHA as smoke-free (collectively, “restricted areas”). PHAs will have the discretion to establish outside designated smoking locations outside of the required 25 feet perimeter, which may include partially enclosed structures, to accommodate smoking residents, to establish additional smoke-free areas (such as around a playground), or, alternatively, to make their entire grounds smoke-free. In addition, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act provides the participant the right to seek a reasonable accommodation, including requests from residents with mobility-impairment or mental disability. A request for a reasonable accommodation from an eligible participant must at least be considered, and granted in appropriate circumstances. To assist PHAs, HUD will work with its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to develop guidance on accommodating persons with a disability related to smoke-free policies. The guidance will be informed by comments on the proposed rule and issued in advance of the final rule.”!documentDetail;D=HUD-2015-0101-0001

    “HUD’s proposal does not prohibit individual PHA residents from smoking. PHAs should continue leasing to persons who smoke.” Of course, they’re not trying to force individual residents from smoking. Puhhh…ppp…pp…puhhh..leeeezz!!!

    So smoking residents effectively have to leave the premises and go onto the street for a smoke. How does this work in areas where it gets lethally cold during winter, e.g., Alaska?

    On the same page there’s a long list of “justifications” for the ban most of which come from organizations long hijacked by antismokers, e.g., Office of the Surgeon-General, Centers for Disease Control, EPA. It should also be pointed out that, regarding indoor air, none of these organizations is a regulatory authority.

  5. Lepercolonist says:

    “This rule is not intended to contradict HUD’s goals to end homelessness and help all Americans secure quality housing.”

    But it DOES contradict goals to end homelessness. Where are these evicted smokers supposed to live ?
    There will be thousands on the street if this passes. I’m sure it is O.K. with Obama. Michelle Obama might yell at him. He is worried about his legacy ?

  6. waltc says:

    Thanks, Frank, for featuring this. And Magnetico for giving a better link. And everyone who’s writing a comment.

    To A a few Q’s, thought deadline was the 10th but yes, it’s the 19th. (Another mea culpa.)

    And Tom,while I believe the comment square has a limit of 5000 characters (not words). if you (or anyone else) wants to write a book, just submit it as an attachment. .i’m sure our friends inPublic Health went on and on with War and Peace-length fiction.about SHS.

    Finally, while they may nominally accept opinions from abroad, I’m sure US opinions are considered much more relevant to US law.

    • waltc says:

      My first link, however, gives you an idea of the comments we’re up against

      FWIW, below was my comment in which I chose to take on just two out of many possible points:

      “I oppose this proposal . If the odor of cigarette smoke is really leaking into other apartments, you’ve got a structural problem, not a smoker problem. It means your ventilation systems are at fault and it means that the odors (and chemical constituents) from harsh household cleaners and disinfectants, pesticides, paint, exotic cooking, and infectious bacteria are also leaking.

      Fix the ventilation. And if you really want your housing projects to be safe, fix the elevators and the plumbing, provide working security cameras and heat, clean up the mold and get rid of the vermin. Also get rid of the dealers and the guns,

      And stop pretending smokers are the cause of disease and thus merit eviction. You’re starting down a dark and dangerous path. (To what ghetto will you send them?)


      A friend, who’ll let me quote her here, submitted a 2 page pdf attachment, taking on 6 widely varied points, the science just one of them. Of which she wrote this:

      2) The Health Argument proposed to justify the ban gets an F in science.

      No existing science justifies this ban. In context, what you’re calling “secondhand smoke”(SHS) doesn’t even contain smoke. Rather, what you’re talking about is secondhand molecules. And indirect “exposure” to a couple of stray, air-diluted molecules has never been shown to threaten people’s health. Never. Because it doesn’t.

      There are no studies showing that whatever might escape under a doorway or thru a vent, has, or ever could, cause death or disease.

      Most of those molecules come from combustion (the act of burning anything! ), not from tobacco. So if you really believe your theory, then ban all combustion. That would include stoves and votive candles.

      The idea that there’s “no safe level” of SHS defies the laws of science. There are safe levels of every known substance on earth (arsenic is in drinking water; cyanide in apricots) as well as of radiation. But a burning vegetable has no safe level? Tell me another tale.

      The only studies done on the health effects of actual, not molecular, SHS (fully half of which showed no effects at all) were done on couples married for 30-40 years (direct exposure to actual smoke) and workers sharing the same (not separated) space for 20-25. Even then, the risk for heart or lung disease was very very low and even then equivocal.

      Any of these arguments can bear repeating

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Those liberals like Castro a rabid anti smoking Nazi doesn’t give a damn about american law. He only cares about control. Remember he was hand picked for the job as he was the mayor in Houston Texas that outlawed smoking literally everywhere. He even outlawed it outdoors at restaraunts and even wanted outdoor grilling outlawed.

  7. prog says:

    A must see…

    ‘What Is Cultural Marxism?’

    ‘To understand the emergence of political correctness, social justice, modern feminism, etc., one must first understand the history of critical theory/Cultural Marxism.’

  8. Harleyrider1978 says:

    They can’t control drugs,guns,murders or crime in HUD housing. A smoking ban is only going to cause more violence in black on black crime when snitching becomes the next tool to use against your neighbor.

  9. Harleyrider1978 says:

    There hasn’t been a single fire story in HUD housing reported at all, yet they make claim of it. As far as cleaning all HUD housing is required to have a complete paint out after 2 year occupancies. Besides floors carpeted if they were before. So cost savings on cleaning is total BS. They have to do a complete clean everyone regardless of smoking or not.

    • rattyariel says:

      This is Jariel (my other handle is rattyariel). The only fire we’ve ever had in my HUD building was a small one caused by a non-smoking resident who did something weird with her microwave, and it exploded. Also – anything about “saving costs on cleaning” is pure BS. We, the tenants, are financially responsible for every bit of damage, or what the powers that be might consider damage. The extremely long list of damages for which we’re financially responsible, both while living here and when moving out, includes “nicotine damage.” Yes, every HUD apartment is required to have a complete paint job every 2 years, and carpets must be replaced every 4 or 5 years.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Your Comment Tracking Number: 1k0-8naf-me02

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

      Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

      This sorta says it all

      These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

      So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”


      All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

      For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

      “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

      “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

      Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

      “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

      For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

      The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

      So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

      Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

      Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    US federal government bans smoking in public housing

    Millions of Americans living in public housing could soon be banned from smoking in their own homes. The U.S. federal government is proposing a new ban on smoking in all public housing in the country…aiming to benefit the health of nearly two million residents-many who are poor, elderly, disabled, or children.

    Musician Sharon Sneed lit her first cigarette when she was barely a teenager. Today, she’s being encouraged to quit by the owners of her apartment block, Hubbard Place in Washington, D.C.
    She attended a cessation program which has helped her to identify daily patterns of addiction and is being supported by sympathetic friends.

    “But I just took what they taught us and then I started noticing. When I get on the computer, I smoke. If I’m talking on the phone, I smoke. If I’m drinking a beer or having a little wine, I smoke. So, those were the triggers,” she said.

    The owners of Hubbard Place specialize in developing housing for people on low incomes, supported by government subsidies. They want residents to embrace a range of healthy habits, including diet, exercise and a recently imposed smoking ban.

    “We got a blend, we got people saying, ‘Yes! You know it’s creating health risks for our children, it’s exacerbating my asthma, I don’t like the smell that’s coming. You know we have central air systems, you know I have to smell my neighbor when they smoke. And then we had smokers saying ‘How dare you take this away from us.’ They view smoking as a right. And smoking is not a protected right and so we had to do some education. And it’s difficult because , you know we realize that , this is a real change for families, and that it’s hard, you know, it’s an addiction,” said Alexandra Nassau-Brownstone, director of resident services, Somerset Development Co..

    The cleaner air at Hubbard Place reflects a broader improvement in society as a whole.

    U.S. cigarette smoking rates for adults aged 18 years and over have dropped from nearly 25% in 1997 to over 15% earlier this year.

    Now, the non-profit organization, Breathe DC supports a smoke-free housing program that targets apartments, condominiums and co-ops in the community.

    “That is going to lead to savings in terms of people’s health and also in terms of fires and in terms of other destruction to property that tobacco may cause,” said Rolando Andrewn, president and founder of Breather DC.

    Last month, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a ban on smoking in all public housing, a measure that would impact almost one million homes.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Has comments but it wont let you register.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Now, the non-profit organization, Breathe DC supports a smoke-free housing program that targets apartments, condominiums and co-ops in the community.

        “Breathe DC” hardly sounds agenda-less. Also, I can’t find the wage of the CEO of this “non-profit” organisation, less even WHO pays it.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:
  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    United Nations agency gives EU a tobacco warning

    Top official tells Commission to steer clear of the industry as it works on new smuggling controls.

    The United Nations public health agency in charge of tobacco control has warned EU policymakers to keep their distance from industry as they consider reforms to fight cigarette smuggling.

    The head of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control secretariat, Vera Da Costa e Silva, wrote senior European Commission officials earlier this month, saying the EU’s close working relationship with tobacco companies to fight cigarette smuggling may violate Europe’s international commitments.

    Citing a recent report in POLITICO, Costa e Silva said the “continuation of an illicit trade agreement with a major tobacco company” on the part of the Commission could be in contravention of international commitments, which state that obligations to clamp down on smuggling “shall not be delegated to the tobacco industry.”

    One of the letters, addressed to Commission Vice President Kristalina Georgieva and Health and Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, points to growing concern over the Commission’s position on two key reform areas, in which the Commission is considering working closely with the world’s four largest tobacco companies.

    The first area of concern is the anti-smuggling agreements which the Commission and EU national governments signed with tobacco producers Philip Morris, Japan Tobacco International, British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco Limited between 2004 and 2010.

    The agreements are legally binding, enforceable anti-fraud deals involving EU and national counterfeit investigators and have been used as a way to compel tobacco companies to take responsibility for genuine tobacco products that end up on EU black markets, avoiding tax. The Philip Morris agreements expire in 2016 and Georgieva is now deciding whether to renew them.

    Commission Vice President Kristalina Georgieva. Photo by EPA

    In another letter, Costa e Silva raised concern about POLITICO’s revelations that anti-smuggling officials within the European anti-fraud office OLAF are both in favor of the Philip Morris deal being renewed and of a controversial packet-tracing technology being promoted by a consortium of tobacco companies.

    “I have raised concerns regarding these matters with both [the directorate general for health and food safety] and OLAF,” Costa e Silva wrote, adding that OLAF investigators had expressed to POLITICO a preference for a “track and trace” technology being promoted by tobacco companies.

    “I believe this to be of some importance, especially in light of the future membership of OLAF in the Panel of Experts on the Protocol,” Costa e Silva said.

    Asked about the letters from Costa e Silva, a Commission official said: “As we said on numerous occasions, there are no negotiations with PMI, or any other companies about the ‘track and tracing’ in the tobacco agreement.”

    The European Union is a signatory to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an international treaty which came into force in 2005.

    Under the convention’s framework, governments around the world are now considering an additional protocol, signed in 2012, which targets the illicit trade of tobacco products. That protocol must now be ratified and accepted by the 53 states and the European Union that have signed it.

    The text of the protocol requires signatories to avoid outsourcing enforcement requirements to the tobacco industry and commits competent authorities to “interact with the tobacco industry and those representing the interests of the tobacco industry only to the extent strictly necessary” to implement the track and trace requirements.

    The Commission is considering how best to balance its own “track and trace” provisions under the EU’s 2012 revised Tobacco Products Directive and the requirements of the World Health Organization protocol.

    Under the directive, the EU will be required by 2019 to “ensure that all unit package of tobacco products are marked with a unique identifier” which will be “irremovably printed or affixed” to cigarette packets. The Commission is preparing a second feasibility study to examine which type of technology it should recommend EU member states employ.

    The tobacco companies are lobbying vigorously for the adoption of their in-house technology, called Codentify. However, other packaging and printing companies are also in the running, including the Swiss-based Sicpa, a high-tech printing company which provides package tracking technology in a number of countries.

    The European Carton Makers Association is also watching the process keenly, with a number of its members preparing to counter bids of both SICPA and Codentify if and when public tenders are issued.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      FCTC GAG ORDERS TO KEEP THE PEOPLE QUIET and have no debate the same as banning commenters…………

      fctc gag order guidelines

      11. The broad array of strategies and tactics used
      by the tobacco industry to interfere with
      the setting and implementing of tobacco control mea
      sures, such as those that Parties to the
      Convention are required to implement, is documented
      by a vast body of evidence. The
      measures recommended in these guidelines aim at pro
      tecting against interference not only by
      the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by o
      rganizations and individuals that work to
      further the interests of the tobacco industry.
      12. While the measures recommended in these guideli
      nes should be applied by Parties as
      broadly as necessary, in order best to achieve the
      objectives of Article 5.3 of the Convention,
      Parties are strongly urged to implement measures be
      yond those recommended in these
      guidelines when adapting them to their specific cir

  14. beobrigitte says:

    The site appears a little convoluted with the usual anti-smoker hysteria.

    I have no idea how to check if my comment appears (I somehow suspect that the anti-smokers just edit it out) but I have noticed that one can leave a comment on behalf of someone else.
    In case my comment does not show perhaps one of the American commenters would like to put it up again – on my behalf:

    Before I put my point of view across I must answer a question or two. According to what we have been told over and over and over again and again about “third-hand-smoke” rendering property as virtually worthless, you might wish to get in touch with owners of houses built prior to 2000.
    Surely there must be a lot of dead previous tenants whose relatives might be short of cash.
    How do you think my generation has reached such a healthy old age?
    Next question: people renting property = income for owner. Over many years I have observed that people who feel at home in their rented property will treat it as if it was their own. They will look after it. I can understand this; for as long as the rent is paid it is peoples’ HOME!

    Next question: I spend my childhood in a property built in 1869. Despite previous owners + my relatives smoking INSIDE, I grew up and have remained remarkably healthy, enjoying my first pension (two more to come) in MY OWN home – that if I am not off tough mudding, skating, snow-skating or anything else I like doing – simply because I can.

    Why do you punish the elderly stuck in rental property into suicide? Is it a case of: “Der Mor hat seine Schuldigkeit getan, der Mor kann gehn?” HOW DO YOU THINK “DER MOR” HAS REACHED OLD AGE???

    It is a rather lengthy comment – I was surprised not to have encountered a word limit….. I was allowed to type all this.
    I have another question……

  15. Clicky says:

  16. slugbop007 says:

    Fascism, American Style.

  17. slugbop007 says:

    Is President Obama still smoking? If so, then he should be evicted from the White House and go live in a tent city with all the evicted smokers in social housing.

  18. Pingback: The Coming HUD Smoker Holocaust | Frank Davis

  19. Pro M. Thius says:

    The suicide rates go up… because it’s like having people come into your city with transcendental meditation to keep it safe… for 100 years… then force them out.

  20. Pingback: All We Want Is To Be Happy | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.